What exactly did the Indiana GOP *think* was going to happen when they passed this anti-gay law?

In conservative Indiana, bemusement amid boycott threats over religious freedom law

Per the above article I’m sure you have seen in the news that there is a huge backlash building against the legislation the Indiana State legislature recently passed into Law and which is set to take effect in July 2015. The bill is so baldly anti-gay you could have pretty much predicted the response happening which is a huge national tidal wave of disgust at this legislation crashing against Indiana and which looks to cost them some serious business and big chunks of goodwill.

I’m not looking to debate the details of the legislation just asking the question why the folks who supported and sighed this bill seem so bewildered by the reaction. Anyone with Gump-level IQ could have seen what was going to happen.

They seem genuinely surprised. Does the GOP live in a bubble reality in Indiana? They can’t honestly be that clueless as to consequences down the line for taking this action in 2015.

They probably thought their many supporters would rally behind them, and the few out gay people in the state would go back to cowering in the shadows like they’re supposed to.

It’s not the first time bigoted lawmakers have underestimated their support for changing social issues.

This is not yet controversial - but does anyone know what was up with the two men who encountered some law enforcement at the NSA driveway gate today? They were dressed in womens’ clothes and had guns & drugs in the car with them. They charged the gate at Fort Meade and exchanged gunfire with the police. One was killed and the other was wounded.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/30/driver-rams-gates-nsa-fort-meade_n_6969238.html

It sounds like a poorly written buddy cop movie. I’d like to know what was the plan when Thelma & Louise set out that morning.

Wrong thread.

I wonder what happens when you mix meth and weed, perhaps?

They thought that there bill would be passed like similar bills in other states had been without much controversy. Mississippi passed essentially the same bill last year and their politicians didn’t get pilloried for it. Kentucky and Kansas did in 2013. 20 states have passed bills (or in Alabama’s case, a constitutional amendment) since the federal law was found to be unconstitutional as applied to the states in 1997.

The question is, why was this bill the one that singled out to get played up? This is the first bill that has passed since the Hobby Lobby ruling, so I think that has a lot to do with it. Many people disagreed with that ruling, and therefore with the law that let it happen. When Arizona tried to strengthen there RFRA last year, it got a lot of press too, so Indiana isn’t really the first to have this issue.

Anyways, there’s a thread in general questions that has some discussion about it.

Aw bugger. I wonder if a mod can move posts …

I thought the article was quite clear on the subject: they are surprised because plenty of laws exactly like this have already been passed and not gotten the same reaction.

Actually, the law is different from the Federal law and most other statrs. Most of the laws allow only apply to interaction between the government and the religious groups. The government cannot force you to do things that conflict with your religious beliefs (i.e., arresting someone for taking peyote when they belonged to a church where that was a sacrament).

The Indiana law allows private individuals to act against other private individuals if it is part of their beliefs. A small but highly significant difference.

Some of the laws don’t specify. Different courts have interpreted them differently. The federal law, for example, has been interpreted by 4 of the circuit courts (of 6 to consider the question) that it can be applied in cases where the government is not a party.

This. People who are in a majority (religious people in general) tend to think that their beliefs are universal, and that the majority will always back them up. And in this case, there’s the assumption that LGBT people are in a marginal minority that could never influence the general public. Well, let the bigots take notice: Religion is no excuse for bigotry, and they’re not getting away with it, this time.

Wildly tone deaf. Goes hand in hand with trying to turn back time, I think.

Other states that have similar laws have sexual orientation as a protected class, so it’s the same, but very different. Indiana has not, and says it will not included sexual orientation with race, religion, etc., I believe that is the difference.

One can only wonder at this time what influence this flap will have on the Supreme Court’s upcoming gay marriage decision. Will they still be able to avoid declaring sexuality a protected classification, as the reactionary wing no doubt would prefer? If they take that step, that effectively nullifies the Indiana law, leaving only the stain.

But now and then they will get away with it and for them that could be enough. Don’t get me wrong, I’m on your side. But we have to look at Roe v Wade and how that is constantly being re-fought and accept that this is going to be an ongoing struggle possibly forever.

Looks like the First Church of Cannabis may be a winner.

Convincing yourself that you are doing God’s work, and that you speak for him and Christians everywhere, may lead to a sense that your work is noble and important. :rolleyes:
IMHO, the more you tell yourself that this is not your own agenda, but God’s, and the more you surround yourself with like-minded individuals, the less willing you are to hear arguments otherwise.
Maybe if these lawmakers believe they are doing God’s work, and that what they see as their mostly straight, mostly Christian electorate love God and the bible like they do, that that electorate would blindly support their efforts. After all, what kind of awful person would argue against God’s clear word?

I also believe these guys forgot that discriminated classes do not live in a bubble, but have friends who will stand with them. That’s a biggie.

My WAG, FWIW.

Which, as I pointed out in the other thread, is almost exactly what the federal RFRA was passed for. It’s going to be fun explaining why the Native American Church should be able to use peyote but the church of cannabis can’t do pot.

On the other hand, Rastafarians are actually an established religion that uses marijuana, and have on a couple of occasions tried to use the RFRA. They sometimes succeed, at least for personal possession, though not for importing it.

Interesting to note that some communities in Indiana do have sexual orientation as a protected class including the largest city, Indianapolis. It makes for some possibly interesting cases since local law is subordinate. On the other hand the law does allow impingement on religious freedoms if the local governments meet the elements within the law.

I’m sure it nullifies it in the minds of those who were fervent supporters only because of sexual orientation. It doesn’t really nullify it though. It still has effective uses similar to the Federal law especially among religious minorities…like the Amish communities in northern Indiana. Making sexual orientation a protected class is just a way to say the government has a case for restricting religious freedom that is in line with the law itself.

Every law has trade offs. Given that the US has had an RFRA for 22 years and yet gays are not banned from places of business throughout the country the damage this law could cause is mostly notional. On the other hand there have been highly published cases of religious small business people sued for not wanted to provide products for gay marriages. The damage this law prevents is entirely real.
The good thing about this is that boycotts work be hurting the boycotter alot to hurt the boycottee a little. Therefore the bullies will be the ones hurt in this case for the most part.

Sorry, I missed that. I was busy worshiping. Amen!